If Republicans want national security and a real conservative there is a candidate they can support, Duncan Hunter.

Rudy's biggest concern isn't McCain. Nope, his biggest concern is people finding out about Hunter. Not that there is much chance of Hunter getting noticed. He is just a very accomplished legislator, with a strong background in military affairs (both on active duty and as a legislator). He has reliable, consistent positions on the issues and no scandals in his background. Why would Republicans want a guy like that when they have their choice of a liberal guy with scandals and a disdain for the second amendment (Giuliani) and a occasionally conservative guy with scandals and a disdain for the first amendment (McCain).

However, if Hunter was a black guy with no accomplishments and only a couple years in congress he'd be in the news non-stop and he'd be complimented by senior Democrats for being clean and articulate. Go figure.

The problem with Matt Lewis' theory is that, as time passes with no terror attacks on the country (for whatever reason), the fear of terror attacks and urgency of "protecting us from terror attacks" keeps diminishing. Unless there is another attack, the urgency will keep going down, not up. So if you are playing to a security crowd, your audience is shrinking with each passing day.

How many people are directly affected by the War on Terror? Very few, those in the military and their families, for the most part. For all others, life is not any different from normal. There is no general feeling of involvement, it is not as if the country is suffering through economic distress, high unemployment, or rising taxes because of the WOT, or there is a general military draft that affects many people.

Rightly or wrongly, for most people, the WOT is now the evening news picture from Iraq, and the headline of another bombing in Baghdad the next day. No wonder the war keeps losing support.

Look, Rudy G would do well to take Newt's strategy and advice, pick a conserv VP like Hunter or Santorum or Kay Baily Hutchinson and appeal to victory over this generational war against Islamofascism, cut taxes, deal strongly with illegal immigration and my guess is those values, policies would cover a multitude of his supposed social and cultural values sins. On top of it, he could beat Her Highness and the rest of the Gopers could not.

Oddly enough, Guiliani and McCain have the same appeal to most Republican primary voters: the promise of strong leadership in the GWOT. While McCain has the "right" positions on some of the social issues, he more than blew that advantage by some of his other positions (campaign finance and "Gang of 14" most prominently). So, ironically, if the "surge" strategy ends with success and we are in the process of a massive drawdown from Iraq without leaving chaos in our wake, both McCain and Guiliani see their chances at the nomination diminish.

Not that the WOT would be less important, but success in Iraq would tend to remove the issue from the forefront of many voters' thinking. The more voters focus on non-defense issues, the bigger the problem for both candidates (although Rudy does have his success in turning around NYC to run on, "competence" rarely wins elections by itself).

If we fail in Iraq, or the situation just remains roughly unimproved, both men's chances of winning the nomination would be improved, BUT that outcome would also mean even greater public dissatisfaction with the war, and make winning the general election problematic.

On the Democratic side, success in Iraq would strengthen Hillary's position, as she is the only major candidate in that party who isn't apologizing for her AUMF vote and flat-out advocating the cut-and-run. Failure/status quo outcomes would favor the antiwar candidates, primarily Edwards and Obama (although Richardson seems to have jumped aboard the bus lately, too).

About the only thing certain about the races at this point is we don't know yet which way the key determinant of the political landscape will shift and, lacking that foreknowledge, it's all pretty much idle speculation at this point.

Fun, though!

For instance, most voters realize that what a President can do to affect issues like abortion are limited (through judicial nominations and the like),
---------------------------
Actually Lorie, I will be fair to the point you are making but gently remind you that the ONLY person...the ONLY person...who can do something about abortion at this present moment is in fact the President.

Judicial nominations to the Supreme Court are not some limited issue - but frankly may be the most important duty the President has today. And not just on the abortion issue.

Because the Supreme Court could easily override most any tool used by the President as commander-in-chief, solely through liberal whim (those pesky permutations they can find in the Constitution) to fight the Islamic menace.

And unfortunately, the wrong candidate on the bench can influence the court for 30+ years.

Rudy better list Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas by NAME as the only sorts of judges he finds acceptable to the Court - if he wants to calm conservative concerns.

And this of course assumes he will be truthful in saying so. Anyone else at least a little concerned about sexual scandal in the White House with a Rudy Presidency?

Steve, in response to a direct question in SC recently, Guiliani cited Roberts, Alito, and Scalia as the ideal type of judges he would seek to appoint - noting in the meantime that judges of their caliber aren't exactly plentiful - because of his strong belief in strict construction, that judges ought never "legislate" from the bench.

His background as US Attorney provides some affirmation of this, since prosecutors rarely benefit from "creative" judging. He also noted that he appointed over 700 judges as Mayor, and invited examination of their records as a fair measure of his intentions. Doing that means he either appointed judges who we would find acceptable and even laudable, or else he is dumb as a rock thinking no one will look.

"Look, Rudy G would do well to take Newt's strategy and advice, pick a conserv VP like Hunter or Santorum or Kay Baily Hutchinson..."

Definitely needs to pick a conservative veep, but I don't think any of the ones you mentioned would work. Hunter's better suited for SecDef than veep. Santorum lost a prime swing state by 20 points last fall. And some pro-lifers don't trust KBH. Or at least that's what I've heard. But there are other options out there. Mark Sanford would be interesting.

Sanford would be perfect.

The guy is a doctrinaire conservative who doesn't anger moderates or independents, a self-term limiter who served only three terms in Congress (slept in his office the first year) and commuted home on weekends.

He protested the pork from the (Republican) legislature by bringing two top hogs to the floor. They didn't like that.

McCain used the "Straight Shooter" image, but Sanford walks the walk.